Stephen Timms: I have decided to appoint the new board members listed below:
	Professor John Brooks
	Peter Allen
	Susan Williams
	Robert Hough
	Cllr Anthony McDermott
	All the new appointments will be for a period of three years.
	The appointments began on 14 December 2007 and will expire on 13 December 2010.
	I have placed further details of the appointments in the Library of both Houses. They were all made in accordance with the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
	BIOGRAPHIES
	Peter Allen MBE is a Cumbrian hill farmer based near Penrith.
	As Chair of the Sheepmeat and Goatmeat Advisory Committee to the EU, he has been involved in reforming and implementing the European sheep regime. Peter for many years was actively involved with the NFU, representing farming and rural issues locally, regionally and nationally. With many others he worked with aspects of industry and Government to control and eradicate foot and mouth disease in 2000-02, and he was the only farmer member of the Royal Society Inquiry into Infectious Diseases of Animals 2001-02. He is currently Chair of the NFU, Mutual Northern Area board, Chair of RUMA—(UK body promoting the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture), and a board member of Natural England and the North West Regional Environment Protection Advisory Committee.
	He holds no other ministerial appointments and has not taken part in any political activities in the last three years.
	John Brooks is the vice-chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University. In his previous job at the university of Wolverhampton he chaired a regeneration project after the closure of Rover, which involved infrastructure development and small business support.
	In 1992 to 98 he helped to create Bodycote-SHU Coatings, a company that offers tool manufacturers the opportunity to use physical vapour deposition coating machines. He chairs the board of the Equality Challenge Unit, and is on the Boards of Universities UK (and their long term strategy group), the Oxford Road Corridor Partnership and the Universities & Colleges Employers Association.
	He holds no other ministerial appointments and has not been involved in any political activities in the last three years.
	Robert Hough was Deputy Chairman and latterly executive director of Peel Holdings for over 13 years and a non-executive director of a number of other companies, including Cheshire Building Society, Alfred McAlpine plc and Provident Financial plc. Peel's businesses include airports, ports, land use, planning, development, waste, energy and the environment.
	A board member of the university of Manchester and a member of the North West Regional Assembly executive board, he also chairs New East Manchester Limited (one of the first urban regeneration companies to be established) and is a member and former Chair of the North West Business Leadership team.
	He lives in Bowdon in Cheshire.
	He holds no other ministerial appointments and has not taken part in any political activities in the last three years.
	Tony McDermott MBE is a resident of Widnes and leader of the Council. He was educated at St. Edward's college Liverpool, and Manchester University. He taught in Lancashire and Liverpool for 34 years.
	He is a board member of the Local Government Association Improvement and Development Agency, the Mersey Partnership, and the North West Improvement Network. Chair of the North West Regional Transport Group, leader of Halton borough council and former Chair of the North West Regional Assembly.
	He is a member of the Urban Commission Executive and the Northern Way Transport Compact.
	He is a supporter of Asbestos Victims Support Group and a board member of the Five Boroughs NHS Mental Health trust. He holds no other ministerial appointments.
	Susan Williams was a nutritionist for the charity Action and Research into Multiple Sclerosis until 2001. She became Conservative leader of Trafford borough council in 2004.
	Member of the Manchester Enterprises board, the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Economic Development board and the Trafford Local Strategic Partnership board.
	She has acted as a political agent for the Conservative party. In 2001 she stood for Parliament in Wythenshawe and Sale East, and in 2006 she was selected as the Parliamentary candidate for Bolton West.
	She lives in Altrincham, in Cheshire.
	She holds no other ministerial appointments.

John Healey: The Government's commitment to provide decent final salary pensions for those employed by local authorities and other organisations associated with local government is matched by the need to ensure that members' pensionsare secure, affordable and viable, and fair to taxpayers who guarantee their security.
	The Government see it as critical to maintain stability of costs in the scheme over the years ahead, particularly in the new-look Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) in England and Wales from 1 April 2008. The intention remains to ensure that no additional costs are imposed on taxpayers or employers. This objective is central to any considerations involving amendments to the scheme's regulatory framework.
	A statutory consultation with all scheme stakeholders in England and Wales on proposals to extend the current levels of protection in the scheme for older employees began on 5 July 2007 and ended on 1 October 2007. The protections were originally introduced by the local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) and (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2006 and took effect from 1 October 2006. The draft proposals would involve amending the regulations to provide a full, rather than a tapered, protection for the period 2016 to 2020, together with appropriate offsetting savings for the estimated cost of this benefit improvement.
	To ensure the continuing solvency of the scheme and to meet the Government's standing policy on ensuring no adverse effects on taxpayers, the costs of implementing any scheme amendments to improve the level of protections would need to be provided from within the scheme.
	The costings for the additional rule of 85 protections were provided by the Government Actuary's Department (GAD), based on the data provided for the 2004 LGPS actuarial valuation exercise. GAD estimated that the capital cost of removing the current tapered protections between 2016 and 2020 was some £0.35 billion—£0.4 billion. In payroll terms, this equates to about 0.1 per cent. or some £25 million annually for 20 years.
	If no agreed means of providing the necessary resources to extend the proposed level of protection emerge from the consultation, then it will be necessary to retain the present level of protection.
	The responses received to the recent consultation exercise have been considered carefully and analysed against agreed criteria regarding affordability and legality, as set out in the Department's consultation letter of 5 July.
	The consultation has demonstrated strong views from all stakeholders in terms both of the level of protections and affordability. I wish, however, to be clear about the most recent position in the scheme regarding costs, the likely numbers of potentially affected older scheme members, and the range of other cost-influencing variables.
	In the light of these representations, I have taken no final decision on the outcome of the statutory consultation exercise and, in view of the data from the 2007 LGPS actuarial valuations which are due to become available early in the new year, I have decided to ask the Local Government Pension Scheme Policy Review Group, with the assistance of GAD, to undertake a fresh costings exercise using emerging data from the 2007 LGPS actuarial valuations. This will allow a new assessment of the current cost position and also provide an opportunity for all the interested stakeholders to engage fully in the review process.
	The exercise for updating of costs is expected to be completed early in the new year. A final decision on the proposed amendment and within the policy parameters of affordability and legality will then be made, taking full account of any further representations which may be made by stakeholders.

David Miliband: The Russian authorities announced yesterday that they planned to shut down the British Council's offices in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg on 1 January 2008.
	Russia's threatened actions are illegal. The British Council's presence in Russia is entirely consistent with international law, including the Vienna Conventions. Its presence and activities are also specifically sanctioned by a 1994 UK/Russia Agreement on Co-operation in Education, Science and Culture, signed by Russia, and which binds both the UK and Russia. The British Council is the designated agent of the British Government for the implementation of the agreement. For the past nine years, the UK has been keen to conclude a further Cultural Centres Agreement with Russia. Pending such an agreement being reached, the 1994 Agreement remains in force.
	For Russia to carry out its threat would therefore constitute a serious attack against the legitimate cultural agent of the British Government would show a disregard for the rule of law and would only damage Russia's reputation around the world.
	Damage will also be done to EU-Russia cultural co-operation. We are discussing with partners (including the EU and the G7), the implications of Russia's threat. I am grateful to the European Commission for expressing its concern to Russia about the situation facing the British Council.
	Overall, Russia's threats set back bilateral and multilateral efforts to improve cultural links, severely affect large numbers of Russians who benefit from the British Council's presence, and damage Russia's reputation around the world. We are urging the Russian authorities to reconsider. At the same time we are working closely with the British Council to ensure the welfare of their staff.
	I will keep the House informed of developments.

David Miliband: The Government regret the unilateral decision by the Russian Federation to cease compliance with its obligations under the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CPE) from 12 December. Russia has sought to explain this decision principally on the grounds that members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) have not ratified the adapted version of the CFE treaty. Together with our NATO allies, the United Kingdom has made a public statement (http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2007/p07-139e.html).
	This Russian decision is unjustified. The United Kingdom, along with NATO allies, has made clear our commitment to ratify as quickly as possible the adaptation of the CFE treaty, which would provide the basis for addressing most of Russia's concerns about the current CFE regime. But it remains right that Russia should in parallel honour its own commitments, made at the 1999 Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe summit in Istanbul, to regularise the status of its forces and equipment in Georgia and Moldova. The principle that host nation consent is required for the stationing of foreign forces is central to effective security and stability in Europe. NATO has engaged intensively with the Russian Federation to seek ways of overcoming differences over how to ensure both these sets of commitments are delivered.
	The Government also consider that the Russian Federation's "suspension" of their obligations cannot be justified either under the provisions of the CFE Treaty or on the grounds set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Accordingly, on 11 December, we sent a Note Verbale, via the Treaty Depository, to all CFE States Parties, making this clear.
	We judge, however, that European security is not fundamentally or immediately threatened by this Russian action. In the short term, we understand Russia will stop exchanging data or sending notifications on the whereabouts and composition of its conventional forces, and will refuse to allow verification inspections. However, if Russia were to persist in this course of action, in the longer-term that would erode the transparency and predictability which the CFE regime contributes to overall stability in Europe.
	To help maintain that stability, the United Kingdom will until further notice, along with its NATO allies, continue to honour all our obligations under the CFE Treaty, including towards the Russian Federation. We will assess the impact of any non-compliance by the Russian Federation, and consult with NATO allies on a further joint response. With NATO allies, we will also continue to promote engagement with the Russi.an Federation with a view to reaching an agreed way forward.

Dawn Primarolo: The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council was held on 5 and 6 December 2007. The health part was held on the 6 December. I represented the UK.
	The Council adopted conclusions on the Portuguese presidency theme of health and migration in the European Union. In a policy debate, Ministers discussed the challenges and opportunities in health presented by migration.
	Ministers welcomed the Commission's EU health strategy, on which council conclusions were adopted. There was agreement that the EU strategy needed to complement national strategies, and that sudsidiarity must be respected. I highlighted the importance of tackling health inequalities.
	Conclusions were also adopted on organ donation and transplantation and on nutrition and obesity responding to Commission communications on these subjects, and the presidency presented a progress report highlighting recent activities on the fight against HIV/AIDS.
	Over lunch there was an informal discussion on health services, on which Commission proposals are expected shortly. Ministers urged caution: it was important to avoid creating inequalities through a system that allowed a few to shop around for care. The proposals should not go further than the ECJ jurisprudence, and member states should be able to use prior authorisation systems for hospital care.
	Slovenia outlined their priorities in health for the forthcoming Slovene presidency. Cancer would be their main priority. They would also be taking forward work on anti-microbial resistance, and highlighting the implementation of policies to tackle alcohol-related harm and cooperation in the area of pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals.

Alan Johnson: I am pleased to announce today the 2008-09 revenue allocations for primary care trusts (PCTs) and the NHS Operating Framework for 2008-09.
	All primary care trusts will receive a cash increase of 5.5 per cent., a total cash increase of £3.8 billion, bringing the total revenue allocations to £74 billion. In addition, £1.7 billion of non-recurrent budgets are also being issued, meaning that 82 per cent. of the total NHS revenue budget will be issued direct to primary care trusts compared to 72 per cent. in 1996-97. Overall, we have trebled investment in the NHS from £35 billion to £110 billion by 2010-11.
	I am keen to continue to raise the transparency and accountability of the NHS and, consequently, I have written individually to all hon. Members in England detailing their relevant PCTs' allocations for 2008-09 and have noted how their current allocations compare to those for 2007-08. I have also included with this written statement, a table detailing 2008-09 PCT allocations.
	As I announced on 22 November, the revenue allocations will be for 2008-09 only, as the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation (ACRA) has asked for additional time to finish their review of the current resource allocation formula. ACRA will complete their work shortly and we intend to announce allocations for 2009-10 and 2010-11 by summer 2008.
	As the House will recognise, the NHS has made substantial progress over the past 10 years of investment and reform. Patients wait no more than four hours in accident and emergency, the health service has more doctors and nurses than ever before; and we have witnessed the largest hospital building programme since the NHS was founded.
	As the NHS enters its 60th year, we must continue to drive forward with ever-greater determination, and so for the year ahead, the NHS has five principal priorities:
	first, improving standards of cleanliness and tackling healthcare associated infections;
	secondly, improving access to care through the achievement of the 18-week referral to treatment pledge and improving access to GP services, including at evenings and weekends;
	thirdly, adults and children well, improving their health and reducing inequalities, by focusing on improving care for cancer and stroke, and paying particular attention to children's health, particularly in the most deprived areas of the country;
	fourthly, improving patient experience, staff satisfaction and engagement; and
	fifthly, preparing to respond in a state of emergency, such as an outbreak of pandemic influenza.
	In addition to the national priorities, PCTs need to continue to improve at understanding the particular needs of their local populations and take concrete steps to address them. In order to meet their own local needs, PCTs will need to work in step with local government through local area agreements that focus on improving health and well-being.
	Local priorities will build on evidence about current PCT performance and regional variation, and also plan for the future by incorporating work being done in local service reviews. Whether it is reducing mixed sex accommodation, personalising services for patients with learning disabilities or responding to the Healthcare Commission's recommendations, local services need to respond to local needs.
	Over the last 18 months, the NHS has continued to drive up the quality of care delivered to patients. This has been made possible by two significant achievements:
	bringing the NHS to financial balance and going on to deliver a surplus; and
	embedding patient choice, practice based commissioning, payment by results and foundation trusts, which all lead to better patient care.
	In order to support this year's NHS Operating Framework, we must continue to develop the necessary structures and leadership in order to enable world class commissioning.
	The NHS must meet the needs of its patients and their families, the expectations of the public and the aspirations of its staff. At all times, the NHS must be safe, effective, personalised and fair. The more responsive and personalised the NHS gets, the better the care it will provide and the more confidence the health service will inspire.
	
		
			 2008-09 PCT Recurrent Revenue Allocations 
			  2007-08 Recurrent Allocation 2008-09 Recurrent Increase 2008-09 Recurrent Allocation 
			 PCT £'000s £'000s £'000s 
			 North East
			 County Durham PCT 784,201 42,833 827,034 
			 Darlington PCT 147,509 8,057 155,566 
			 Gateshead PCT 313,317 17,113 330,431 
			 Hartlepool PCT 144,243 7,879 152,122 
			 Middlesbrough PCT 228,340 12,472 240,812 
			 Newcastle PCT 417,413 22,799 440,212 
			 North Tees PCT 253,743 13,859 267,603 
			 North Tyneside PCT 298,390 16,298 314,688 
			 Northumberland Care Trust 434,542 23,735 458,277 
			 Redcar and Cleveland PCT 206,163 11,261 217,424 
			 South Tyneside PCT 243,791 13,316 257,107 
			 Sunderland Teaching PCT 449,010 24,525 473,535 
			 North West
			 Ashton, Leigh and Wigan PCT 449,115 24,531 473,646 
			 Blackburn with Darwen PCT 227,152 12,407 239,559 
			 Blackpool PCT 232,537 12,701 245,239 
			 Bolton PCT 388,481 21,219 409,700 
			 Bury PCT 247,864 13,538 261,403 
			 Central and Eastern Cheshire PCT 571,132 31,195 602,327 
			 Central Lancashire PCT 607,500 33,182 640,682 
			 Cumbria PCT 689,160 37,642 726,801 
			 East Lancashire PCT 553,338 30,223 583,561 
			 Halton and St Helens PCT 474,176 25,899 500,076 
			 Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale PCT 316,327 17,278 333,605 
			 Knowsley PCT 268,697 14,676 283,374 
			 Liverpool PCT 803,354 43,879 847,234 
			 Manchester PCT 815,430 44,539 859,969 
			 North Lancashire PCT 456,349 24,926 481,275 
			 Oldham PCT 332,588 18,166 350,754 
			 Salford PCT 374,615 20,461 395,076 
			 Sefton PCT 424,393 23,180 447,574 
			 Stockport PCT 379,343 20,720 400,063 
			 Tameside and Glossop PCT 337,310 18,424 355,733 
			 Trafford PCT 299,535 16,361 315,896 
			 Warrington PCT 259,050 14,149 273,199 
			 Western Cheshire PCT 332,116 18,140 350,256 
			 Wirral PCT 500,617 27,344 527,960 
			 Yorkshire and Humber
			 Barnsley PCT 353,531 19,310 372,841 
			 Bradford and Airedale PCT 713,986 38,998 752,984 
			 Calderdale PCT 275,396 15,042 290,438 
			 Doncaster PCT 439,103 23,984 463,087 
			 East Riding Of Yorkshire PCT 380,204 20,767 400,971 
			 Hull PCT 401,457 21,928 423,384 
			 Kirklees PCT 527,512 28,813 556,324 
			 Leeds PCT 1,032,366 56,388 1,088,754 
			 North East Lincolnshire PCT 229,114 12,514 241,629 
			 North Lincolnshire PCT 208,972 11,414 220,386 
			 North Yorkshire and York PCT 947,379 51,746 999,125 
			 Rotherham PCT 361,022 19,719 380,741 
			 Sheffield PCT 783,833 42,813 826,646 
			 Wakefield District PCT 489,186 26,719 515,905 
			 East Midlands
			 Bassetlaw PCT 144,874 7,913 152,787 
			 Derby City PCT 361,115 19,724 380,839 
			 Derbyshire County PCT 922,913 50,410 973,323 
			 Leicester City PCT 424,964 23,212 448,176 
			 Leicestershire County and Rutland PCT 730,485 39,899 770,384 
			 Lincolnshire PCT 922,602 50,393 972,995 
			 Northamptonshire PCT 817,249 44,638 861,887 
			 Nottingham City PCT 430,928 23,537 454,466 
			 Nottinghamshire County PCT 839,335 45,844 885,179 
			 West Midlands
			 Birmingham East and North PCT 606,916 33,150 640,065 
			 Coventry Teaching PCT 469,451 25,641 495,092 
			 Dudley PCT 407,037 22,232 429,270 
			 Heart of Birmingham Teaching PCT 454,255 24,811 479,066 
			 Herefordshire PCT 226,439 12,368 238,807 
			 North Staffordshire PCT 278,040 15,187 293,227 
			 Sandwell PCT 461,941 25,231 487,172 
			 Shropshire County PCT 363,336 19,845 383,181 
			 Solihull Care Trust 259,370 14,167 273,537 
			 South Birmingham PCT 510,764 27,898 538,661 
			 South Staffordshire PCT 716,139 39,115 755,254 
			 Stoke On Trent PCT 392,763 21,453 414,216 
			 Telford and Wrekin PCT 209,334 11,434 220,768 
			 Walsall Teaching PCT 374,066 20,431 394,497 
			 Warwickshire PCT 652,206 35,624 687,830 
			 Wolverhampton City PCT 360,656 19,699 380,355 
			 Worcestershire PCT 679,281 37,102 716,383 
			 East of England
			 Bedfordshire PCT 483,955 26,434 510,388 
			 Cambridgeshire PCT 685,883 37,463 723,346 
			 East and North Hertfordshire PCT 667,728 36,471 704,199 
			 Great Yarmouth and Waveney PCT 319,752 17,465 337,217 
			 Luton PCT 247,703 13,530 261,233 
			 Mid Essex PCT 405,722 22,161 427,883 
			 Norfolk PCT 932,449 50,930 983,379 
			 North East Essex PCT 422,921 23,100 446,020 
			 Peterborough PCT 226,047 12,347 238,393 
			 South East Essex PCT 441,775 24,130 465,904 
			 South West Essex PCT 525,622 28,709 554,331 
			 Suffolk PCT 726,691 39,692 766,383 
			 West Essex PCT 340,399 18,593 358,991 
			 West Hertfordshire PCT 679,655 37,123 716,778 
			 London
			 Barking and Dagenham PCT 267,023 14,585 281,607 
			 Barnet PCT 460,640 25,160 485,800 
			 Bexley Care Trust 281,904 15,398 297,301 
			 Brent Teaching PCT 440,836 24,078 464,915 
			 Bromley PCT 403,632 22,046 425,678 
			 Camden PCT 398,848 21,785 420,633 
			 City and Hackney Teaching PCT 416,671 22,759 439,429 
			 Croydon PCT 458,633 25,051 483,683 
			 Ealing PCT 481,157 26,281 507,438 
			 Enfield PCT 384,190 20,984 405,175 
			 Greenwich Teaching PCT 372,379 20,339 392,719 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham PCT 286,377 15,642 302,019 
			 Haringey Teaching PCT 375,205 20,494 395,698 
			 Harrow PCT 276,176 15,085 291,261 
			 Havering PCT 331,028 18,081 349,109 
			 Hillingdon PCT 333,169 18,198 351,367 
			 Hounslow PCT 322,634 17,622 340,256 
			 Islington PCT 363,928 19,878 383,806 
			 Kensington and Chelsea PCT 297,613 16,256 313,868 
			 Kingston PCT 219,238 11,975 231,213 
			 Lambeth PCT 505,097 27,588 532,686 
			 Lewisham PCT 429,633 23,467 453,100 
			 Newham PCT 454,046 24,800 478,846 
			 Redbridge PCT 317,506 17,342 334,848 
			 Richmond and Twickenham PCT 242,789 13,261 256,050 
			 Southwark PCT 433,721 23,690 457,410 
			 Sutton and Merton PCT 497,211 27,158 524,369 
			 Tower Hamlets PCT 395,521 21,603 417,125 
			 Waltham Forest PCT 347,335 18,971 366,306 
			 Wandsworth PCT 420,027 22,942 442,968 
			 Westminster PCT 396,902 21,679 418,581 
			 South East Coast
			 Brighton and Hove City PCT 381,965 20,863 402,828 
			 East Sussex Downs and Weald PCT 458,443 25,040 483,483 
			 Eastern and Coastal Kent PCT 1,013,331 55,348 1,068,679 
			 Hastings and Rother PCT 270,154 14,756 284,910 
			 Medway PCT 340,701 18,609 359,310 
			 Surrey PCT 1,335,260 72,932 1,408,192 
			 West Kent PCT 810,316 44,259 854,576 
			 West Sussex PCT 1,034,023 56,478 1,090,501 
			 South Central
			 Berkshire East PCT 467,641 25,543 493,184 
			 Berkshire West PCT 521,310 28,474 549,784 
			 Buckinghamshire PCT 573,490 31,324 604,814 
			 Hampshire PCT 1,531,884 83,671 1,615,555 
			 Isle of Wight NHS PCT 204,994 11,197 216,191 
			 Milton Keynes PCT 277,919 15,180 293,098 
			 Oxfordshire PCT 727,498 39,736 767,234 
			 Portsmouth City Teaching PCT 253,929 13,870 267,799 
			 Southampton City PCT 323,249 17,656 340,905 
			 South West
			 Bath and North East Somerset PCT 224,569 12,266 236,835 
			 Bournemouth and Poole PCT 455,410 24,874 480,284 
			 Bristol PCT 571,181 31,198 602,379 
			 Cornwall and Isles Of Scilly PCT 710,827 38,825 749,652 
			 Devon PCT 956,903 52,266 1,009,169 
			 Dorset PCT 512,900 28,015 540,915 
			 Gloucestershire PCT 731,208 39,939 771,146 
			 North Somerset PCT 251,427 13,733 265,159 
			 Plymouth Teaching PCT 348,433 19,031 367,464 
			 Somerset PCT 661,858 36,151 698,008 
			 South Gloucestershire PCT 275,190 15,031 290,221 
			 Swindon PCT 243,943 13,324 257,267 
			 Torbay Care Trust 207,397 11,328 218,725 
			 Wiltshire PCT 539,616 29,474 569,089 
			 
			 England 70,354,697 3,842,774 74,197,471

James Plaskitt: The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council was held on 5 December in Brussels. I represented the UK, except for the items on the working time directive and the agency workers directive where the UK was represented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Health and consumer affairs issues were taken on 6 December.
	The Council failed to reach an agreement on the worker mobility directive on supplementary pensions. The area of concern for other delegations was the maximum length of the period before a worker's pension rights become unconditional. This will be taken forward by a future presidency.
	There was also no agreement on the working time or temporary workers directives. The prospects for moving forward on these were discussed over lunch. Mr Hutton said the current working time text was a significant improvement on previous versions and whilst the UK still had some reservations, he believed that agreement was close. On agency workers, the presidency concluded—and member states agreed—that the text needed more work. The UK made it clear that it stood ready to support the presidency in future work to address outstanding issues.
	The European Commission said it would consider withdrawing both directives but this suggestion was opposed by most member states including the UK. The presidency concluded that progress had been made but further in-depth discussion was needed on both directives, with the aim of an early and broad consensus.
	Agreement was reached on parts of an implementing regulation for social security co-ordination Regulation 883/04, specifically on the chapters covering administration of unemployment and family benefits and the corresponding parts of an annex to the regulation.
	The Council had a policy debate based on the recent Commission communication on services of general interest. I stressed, as did the majority of others that social services were important, both to individuals and more widely, and that quality was crucial. I also emphasised the need for subsidiarity and local and flexible delivery. While there was some common ground, the debate identified great diversity of situation and approach within and between member states and Ministers stressed the need for subsidiarity and exchange of experience and best practice. It was concluded that further work was needed in this area.
	The Council adopted conclusions on flexicurity and endorsed a joint opinion of the Employment and Social Protection Committees on the subject. The Council also adopted conclusions and endorsed an Employment Committee opinion on future prospects for the European employment strategy in the context of the new cycle of the Lisbon strategy. The Council also adopted conclusions on active inclusion of people furthest from the labour market, women and poverty as part of the Beijing platform and on balanced roles for women and men as well as a resolution on follow-up to this year's European Year of Equal Opportunities for All.
	Slovenia outlined their priorities on employment and social policy for their forthcoming presidency starting in January, which will include "Employment of the Young", "Equal Opportunities" and "Demography" as their three key presidency themes.